Slashdot Mirror


'55 Science Paper Retracted to Thwart Creationists

i_like_spam writes "The New York Times has up a story about a paper published in 1955 by Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor at Brooklyn College. The paper, entitled 'Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life', speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in the Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, 'one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive.' Nobody paid much attention to the paper at the time, but today it is winning Dr. Jacobson acclaim that he does not want — from creationists who cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention. So after 52 years, he has retracted the paper. 'Dr. Jacobson's retraction is in "the noblest tradition of science," Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist, wrote in its November-December issue, which has Dr. Jacobson's letter. His letter shows, Ms. Reid wrote, "the distinction between a scientist who cannot let error stand, no matter the embarrassment of public correction," and people who "cling to dogma."'"

15 of 858 comments (clear)

  1. Celebration/Mourning by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This retraction is to be simultaneously celebrated and mourned. Celebrated in the sense that we have a true scientist who will hold up the scientific process and make every effort to prove himself and the community of scientists wrong in order to make the science stronger. When we have individuals that fail to attempt to prove their work as incorrect, we have to acknowledge that they are being driven by other motives and they are not to be trusted.

    This noble effort is also to be mourned because of the manipulation and steering of science to fill political goals driven by lack of scientific understanding in the wider community.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Celebration/Mourning by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, every person who believes in a creation story really is basing this belief solely on dogma. There is absolutely no evidence supporting any of the supernatural claims in any of the genesis myths of any of the worlds' religions. None.

      Scientists believe knowledge comes from evidence and the logical conclusions derivable from that evidence.
      Religious people believe knowledge comes from "faith" (aka "it is written"), which is the polar opposite of evidence.

      The so called "moderate" religious people exist in a state of mind called "cognitive dissonance" whereby all knowledge is derived from evidence and logic EXCEPT knowledge pertaining to topics they have been indoctrinated from birth to accept due to faith. This is your textbook dogma.

      Don't take a textbook definition of dogma and call it anything else. That's really disingenuous of you.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  2. Futile Effort by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The retraction came about when, on a whim, Dr. Jacobson ran a search for his name on Google. At age 84 and after 20 years of retirement, "I wanted to see, what have I done in all these many years?" he said. "It was vanity. What can I tell you?" That's vanity? No, the only thing he's missing is a bottle of Jack Daniels & that's how I spend my Friday nights!

    But in all serious, this is going to be a pretty futile effort. It's greatly appreciated but it's probably going to backfire. This could be spun as 'lawyers' forcing a scientist's views out of sight, a scientist that's just trying to tell the truth. The same lawyers that have orchestrated the dinosaur bones found across the world.

    And the character assassination from the Creationists will most likely consist of 'waffler' and 'flip-flopper', two terms I have no idea why they even exist.

    This is the sign of a man of the highest quality in my eyes. I only wish that everyone--especially the politicians--look to him for guidance in how to 1) take ownership of something when you're wrong and 2) fix it.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Likely result by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons.

    The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.

    1. Re:Likely result by vought · · Score: 5, Funny

      The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.


      I can think of about 25% of the U.S. population who prove your statement incontrovertibly true.

    2. Re:Likely result by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Or we'll just say that nothing is written in stone, and the papers you publish today may be retracted tomorrow when you change your minds.

      Papers are retracted when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their conclusions... most of the time that happens when new facts emerge as the science progresses.
      <blockquote>This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO.</blockquote>
      I think the bigger concern is that you look for "objective truth"(tm)... There is no such thing - there is only "best approximation" based on the evidence thus far obtained. Science and the scientific method just happen to provide the best framework for making reasonable judgments about the real world, based on theories, the only measure of the success of which, is their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.

      If you come up with a better system, let me know. Until then, I'll be happy with an idea, rather than a belief-based "objective truth", thank you.
    3. Re:Likely result by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone is biased. The difference is between the ones who are aware of their own biases and those who are deluded into thinking that they aren't.

      Nah. The difference is between the people who are aware of their biases - namely, me and everyone who agrees with me - and people who are sadly deluded and too caught up in the web of deceit or just plain too stupid to realize it or too stubborn to admit it, or who actually purposefully and maliciously lying and/or engaged in a huge conspiracy against the truth for whatever reason.

      If you or the moderators disagree, that's just because your bias of thinking yourself as objective. Let go of your bias and support the objective point of view by modding me up ;).

      The thing is, we humans don't actually perceive reality, we perceive an approximation of it, produced by our senses and mental faculties. It is impossible to know how closely your approximation actually resembles reality as a whole or at any particular point, because you have no way of comparing it to reality proper, because the latter is not perceptible to you. That's why people usually assume that their approximation is a good match and anyone who disagrees is wrong or biased. And this is assuming that a particular perception is actually based on some objective reality, which is not at all certain for things like moral values.

      What this means is that no one is truly aware of their own biases, since that awareness could only be gained by comparing your approximation of reality to reality proper, which is impossible. You, gentle reader, are biased, and not aware of all of your biases, no matter how certain you are of your own objectivity. You can trust me on this, because I clearly am truly objective, being aware of all this :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Re:i'm confused on the timeline by RedACE7500 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's somewhere near the back.

  5. Re:Overeactions 'R Us by hansraj · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, you would see that he reread his paper and found many errors that no one else had found yet. He retracted the paper because of the errors. Of course he might have other motives but that is anybody's guess

  6. Re:Overeactions 'R Us by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Informative

    The nature of the citations made him re-read it, and realize he'd made factual errors. Those errors were being used to support the arguments of the people citing the paper. So he retracted it to remove those errors from circulation.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  7. Ironic curiosity by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons.

    The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.
    Hmm. Out of curiosity, on what basis are you determining that such a slant would be incorrect? Obviously, you're right that confirmation bias would lead to that slant, but that doesn't say anything about whether it's correct--nor would your own biases to view such a slant as zealotry.

    Where is your own opinion here coming from? Do you have the knowledge & understanding of the facts of the situation to know that such a slant would be wrong? Or does it just fit your own nice package of preconceived notions?
    1. Re:Ironic curiosity by ArikTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're talking about evidence here, which has nothing to do with joy or peace. Facts don't care if you feel good about them.

    2. Re:Ironic curiosity by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Terse, unsupported assertions are the enemy of cheese.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  8. Re:i'm confused on the timeline by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same faith held by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Last time I checked, the "scientists" were outnumbered.


    Last time I checked, popular belief didn't make things true. A majority of the population of the world used to think the sun revolved around the earth. It was this "scientific minority" you speak of that happened to be right. This was not an isolated incident, either; it has happened fairly regularly throughout history.

    Our documentation is far older than anything they have.
    ...Which only means it was written by less informed people. How does this help you? Guess what, there are religious texts/artifacts that are older than the Bible. Perhaps you should switch to paganism.

    Listen, pal, if you don't trust scientists, then give up all your modern conveniences and move into a cave. You should be respectful of the work they've done to provide you with what you have.
    --
    "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
  9. Re:People retract stuff all the time... so what! by npsimons · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a jesuit
    priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
    about me. From the viewpoint of a jesuit priest I am, of course, and
    have always been an atheist.
    -- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a
    rumor that a jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from
    atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5,
    No. 2, 1997

    . . . a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light
    but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with
    incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical
    good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine
    of a personal god, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which
    in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests . . . The
    further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it
    seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through
    the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through
    striving after rational knowledge.
    -- Albert Einstein, address at the Princeton Theological Seminary,
    May 19, 1939, published in _Out of My Later Years_, New York:
    Philosophical Library, 1950.

    I do not believe in the god of theology who rewards good and punishes
    evil.
    -- Albert Einstein, Personal memoir of William Miller, editor, Life,
    May 2, 1955

    I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is
    a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
    crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
    to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
    indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
    corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
    nature and of our own being.
    -- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article
    by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997

    It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which [I]
    lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely
    personal,' from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and
    primitive feelings.
    -- Albert Einstein, as quoted in Einstein, history, and Other
    Passions, p. 172

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
    lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
    personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
    If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
    unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
    science can reveal it.
    -- Albert Einstein

    The idea of a personal god is an anthropological concept which I am
    unable to take seriously.
    -- Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946

    The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the
    fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true
    science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer
    marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the
    experience of mystery -- even